Guy Pearce plays a wrongfully accused government agent who has a chance at freedom if he rescues the president's daughter from a maximum security prison in outer space...

Despite that plot synopsis, this is surprisingly a very entertaining action thriller. Guy Pearce is great as a wise cracking anti-hero. It's sort of a cheap thriller, but uses it's low budget very effectively.

Awesome rental.

V/H/S

This is a very low budget anthology of random found footage clips. Some are better than others, but all of them are a little creepy and pretty different from each other. Most of them are supernatural.

It's nothing high quality, but much more imaginative than your typical cash in found footage movie these days. I'd only see this if you enjoy the genre. And I would watch this at home with the lights off. It's going to be a better rental and big screen experience.

Not out in the states yet, but it's out there...

The Apparition

This was a bit of false advertising. The movie is supposed to be about making an entity or ghost appear if enough people truly believe in it. Well one experiment like that happens in the opening scene, but the rest of the movie is just about a couple being haunted and terrorized by that same entity.

It's pretty boring and awful. Nothing really happens or is ever explained, even though they try to, it falls horribly flat.

Avoid, avoid, avoid.

The Campaign

Caught this a few weeks ago. It's pretty funny. Will Ferrel is great in this role. Zach GalatheguyfromtheHangover is as well, but I'm not sure it needed an entire movie. The movie is a critique the political process, rather than the issues, but it might have been better as a series of vignettes aired by funnyordie rather than a story.

Does it have a liberal or conservative slant? Well it attacks the Koch brothers, but that's about it. Neither the Democratic or Republican candidate bring up any real issues or have any differences from each other.

Wow, Fawful and Marsden should start a thread on shitty Philip K. Dick adaptations. I'm loathe to admit it, but I also saw Total Recall and actually own Paycheck, because I'm that kind of masochistic nerd.

On a brighter note:Searching For Sugar Man awesome/10Moving doc about Rodriguez, a mysterious musician from Detroit who put out two brilliant but failed albums, may or may not have commited suicide on stage, then years later got famous in South Africa and inspired a generation of anti-apartheid musicians. The whole movie is about how unknown the artist is, so no prior knowledge required. In fact, the less you know, the better, because this movie might just make a fan out of you.

The first Universal monster movie I both did and didn't really like. It's a rehash of Dracula with Bela Lugosi. The Van Helsing character is rehashed. Mina, John Harker, and Doctor Seward are all rehashed.

The movie is more Egyptian, and Imhotep is actually more powerful than Dracula in some ways, but the basic plot is the same. If The Mummy had come first, perhaps Imhotep would be the more menacing figure. I don't think so. There is something in Boris Karloff's wrinkled face that conveys a sense of ancient evil really well, and the acting is great, but the similarities to Dracula make me feel rather...like the movie is lazy. Then there is the beautiful cinematography, the expansive sets and costume design for ancient Egypt, the wonderful heroine, and truly menacing atmosphere. Gods come to life, and it's a really neat effect. I'm torn on this one. There's a lot of good, but I can't decide if it serves to be lazy or to make an existing story better in a new setting.

The Mummy [Brendan Frasier] - ???/10

A movie that not only manages to pay homage to the original in a respectful way, but it evolves the story into something a bit more unique. The Mummy in Karl Freund's version had a great backstory, but this was marred by the rehash it was taking place in. Many lines in this movie are ripped straight from the Karloff one. It also borrows various elements from various people who were attached to the project: zombie mummies from Romero and juicy bloody regeneration from Barker- and added them to the original's concept. This all services to re-invigorate the story. However, the movie takes place in the backdrop of a cheesy pulp action movie. I like Brendan Frasier, I LOVE pulp adventures, and I LOVE this movie, but comparing to the original, this one feels much less poetic. It's definitely respectful, however. So how do they fare?

The new one has the better monster and better story....but the older one has the better tone. Using what this movie created, and sticking to the dark, poetic feeling of the original, a movie with a pure sense of dread could be made. Even so, I appreciate both films for what they are, and enjoy both, although I enjoy the new one just a little bit more.

Basically, it did a very good job of staying true to the books. If you enjoyed the books, you'll probably enjoy the movie about as much. Well cast, well acted. And best of all, they kept the mood of the books.

I'm sure other people would have different opinions on it, but I'd say it's a pretty solid film. Did what it came to do and did that well.

I'll agree that it was good entertainment, but in my opinion it was far from being able to convey the feeling of helplessness and desperation of the people as portrayed in the book. I was pretty disappointed to see how mild it had been made to fit a PG-13 rating.

To me the girl cast as Katniss didn't fit with the image of a lean, undernourished hunter girl living under oppression I had, but that's my opinion. The acting was very good and believable at times, but sadly lacking at other times. When the same actors differ so greatly in performance, I think it must be due to poor directing.

It currently has 7.3 on imdb.com. I'd probably give it a 6, but that's not to say I wouldn't recommend watching it. I got what I expected from the movie, and I'll probably see the next one as well.